Petros/Petra

[Aash]

Sorry I double posted

 

[DHK]

In Revelation 21:14, where New Jerusalem is said to have not one foundation, but twelve, with the names of the apostles. This is a select group, including only the eleven who were apostles during Christ’s earthly ministry, plus Matthias (Acts 1:26). Not even Paul and Barnabas, who also were called apostles (Acts 14:14), were members of the Twelve.

"The New Jerusalem which is the bride of Christ."
--Going from the sublime to the ridiculous, you are using something highly symbolic or figurative and trying to make it very literal. It cannot be done. The apostles in heaven are not going to be turned into various types of jewels or minerals. They will remain alive.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

--No rock here (not in the Greek). Only a pebble; a little stone called Peter.

In 1 Corinthians 3, Christ is the foundation of the local Church. In 1 Peter 2, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church. In Ephesians 2, Christ is the cornerstone with the apostles and New Testament prophets as the foundation.

In every case Christ is either called the foundation or referred to as the chief cornerstone of the foundation. What more proof do you want? Compared to the chief cornerstone (if you know anything about the construction of the buildings of those days), the rest of the "rocks" were as small stones. The chief corner stone had to be large, square, and foundational to everything else in the building. It was there that they started. Without it the building could not be built. Without Christ the church cannot be built.

 

[EdSutton]

St. Andrews is also a Methodist University in Scotland. At least the board of truties for the School of Divinity

St. Andrew's has some right nice golf courses, as well, seven to be exact.

http://www.standrews.org.uk/

In fact, one of 'em dates back around 250 years and the game has been played in that area of Scotland (where it was actually invented) for 6 1/2 Centuries, and the oldest extant course is 500 years old.

http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/musselburgh_oldest_golf_course.htm

Ed

 

[Bob Bishop]

It seems the identity of a single man, (other than Christ) as the Rock upon which the Church is built is fraught with difficulty both in the historical sense and the scriptural. If Scripture indeed interprets Scripture, we should have seen some apostolic age recognition of the office of the Papacy, some deference to Peter in an absolute sense as the head of the church "till death do us part". But we do not. Certainly, he had a primary leadership role at Pentecost and was present for several key events. But vast amounts of work was done outside Peter's direction, and in one case, Peter himself was rebuked and corrected by Paul. James seemed to be more the moderator in charge in Jerusalem, and later, Peter's distinction was that he was considered "The Apostle of the Circumcision". The argument from noun gender or that the original statement was likely in Aramaic really becomes moot when we realize that as far as Peter being the ruler of the church world in the early church, there was really a lot less deference given to him than one might have expected.

Historically, as well, the first nearly 1000 years where the Catholic Church claims "history", it was shared by a whole lot of people that disagreed so fervently with that opinion that they separated, are still separated, in large part over this very issue. The Orthodox Church owns that first thousand years at least as much as the Roman Church does, and Peter really did not get his "propers" from them. It looks to be that one institution and one along clings to a very expanded meaning of what was intended in the Caesarea Philippi declaration than all the rest of the church world has. It's their story and they are sticking to it.
But even if Peter was somewhat of a pillar (Paul in Galatians seemed to say something about that with just a bit of sarcasm), it is still a long stretch to insist that there has been an infallible succession of men who have filled his shoes.

Nice try, but for many, we simply are not buying it. No disrespect intended, it is just that it appears it is a privilege wrested from scripture by force rather than naturally gifted to the church, as one might expect if this was the true will of God.

 

[utilyan]

It seems the identity of a single man, (other than Christ) as the Rock upon which the Church is built is fraught with difficulty both in the historical sense and the scriptural. If Scripture indeed interprets Scripture, we should have seen some apostolic age recognition of the office of the Papacy, some deference to Peter in an absolute sense as the head of the church "till death do us part". But we do not. Certainly, he had a primary leadership role at Pentecost and was present for several key events. But vast amounts of work was done outside Peter's direction, and in one case, Peter himself was rebuked and corrected by Paul. James seemed to be more the moderator in charge in Jerusalem, and later, Peter's distinction was that he was considered "The Apostle of the Circumcision". The argument from noun gender or that the original statement was likely in Aramaic really becomes moot when we realize that as far as Peter being the ruler of the church world in the early church, there was really a lot less deference given to him than one might have expected.

Historically, as well, the first nearly 1000 years where the Catholic Church claims "history", it was shared by a whole lot of people that disagreed so fervently with that opinion that they separated, are still separated, in large part over this very issue. The Orthodox Church owns that first thousand years at least as much as the Roman Church does, and Peter really did not get his "propers" from them. It looks to be that one institution and one along clings to a very expanded meaning of what was intended in the Caesarea Philippi declaration than all the rest of the church world has. It's their story and they are sticking to it.
But even if Peter was somewhat of a pillar (Paul in Galatians seemed to say something about that with just a bit of sarcasm), it is still a long stretch to insist that there has been an infallible succession of men who have filled his shoes.

Nice try, but for many, we simply are not buying it. No disrespect intended, it is just that it appears it is a privilege wrested from scripture by force rather than naturally gifted to the church, as one might expect if this was the true will of God.

Bob.....that stuff was said like 10 years ago. Maybe you want to start a new thread on the meaning of rock.

Its what they call a zombie necro thread. You ressurected 10 year old thread...... I wonder how you even found it.

 

[tyndale1946]

Bob.....that stuff was said like 10 years ago. Maybe you want to start a new thread on the meaning of rock.

Its what they call a zombie necro thread. You ressurected 10 year old thread...... I wonder how you even found it.

Yeah newbies they do get lost on here, so do the Christian thing and help him out utilyan, we were all once newbies too... I wonder how long he would have been waiting for an answer if you didn't show up?... I wonder how many leave because no one does?... Now please herd that wandering sheep back to the fold... Brother Glen

That's OK I sent him a PM!... And reported the zombie thread to the Squire

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This zombie thread from 2009 is closed.